India-origin Abhijit Banerjee among three to receive Economics Nobel

[CIA Mole]

"alleviating poverty"

Why doesn't India let this guy be PM then?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Go live in an authoritarian state then where you own no capital property and have no voting rights. Democracy is what we have chosen for good or for worse. Dont give such ill informed comments. Read twice before clicking on reply.

It's OK. If it makes you feel better, even if this man was in India, he would not be able to prescribe a better economic policy to make India better.

For example: comparative advantage. If you follow orthodox economics, then developing countries can never become developed:

Let's say there's 3 countries A, B and C.

A is a rich developed country with industrial, technological economy.
B and C are poor, undeveloped countries reliant on agriculture and natural resources.

Orthodox economics theory dictates that A exports technology and B/C export natural resources and food, because that would be their comparative advantages on the market. Question: what happens to the profits from said trade?

A will undoubtably invest in more industrial production and technology to gain an even more dominant position in the market. This is easy to see.

Now let's look at B and C. If B invests in technology and industrial production, then its infant industries are in competition with the much more developed industries of A. It cannot compete, it loses all its investment. But wait, you say. It can tariff A, it can force companies and customers in B to only buy its own industrial products. OK. Let's say B can do that without any retaliation. It STILL loses - because C could've invested in more agricultural production and more natural resource extraction, thus beating B in the export market and lowering its ability to invest in industry.

Following classical economics, poor countries are doomed.

 

[maximuswarrior]

It's OK. If it makes you feel better, even if this man was in India, he would not be able to prescribe a better economic policy to make India better.

For example: comparative advantage. If you follow orthodox economics, then developing countries can never become developed:

Let's say there's 3 countries A, B and C.

A is a rich developed country with industrial, technological economy.
B and C are poor, undeveloped countries reliant on agriculture and natural resources.

Orthodox economics theory dictates that A exports technology and B/C export natural resources and food, because that would be their comparative advantages on the market. Question: what happens to the profits from said trade?

A will undoubtably invest in more industrial production and technology to gain an even more dominant position in the market. This is easy to see.

Now let's look at B and C. If B invests in technology and industrial production, then its infant industries are in competition with the much more developed industries of A. It cannot compete, it loses all its investment. But wait, you say. It can tariff A, it can force companies and customers in B to only buy its own industrial products. OK. Let's say B can do that without any retaliation. It STILL loses - because C could've invested in more agricultural production and more natural resource extraction, thus beating B in the export market and lowering its ability to invest in industry.

Following classical economics, poor countries are doomed.

Go a bit easy on the man. You literally took him apart.

 

[BL33D]

It's OK. If it makes you feel better, even if this man was in India, he would not be able to prescribe a better economic policy to make India better.

For example: comparative advantage. If you follow orthodox economics, then developing countries can never become developed:

Let's say there's 3 countries A, B and C.

A is a rich developed country with industrial, technological economy.
B and C are poor, undeveloped countries reliant on agriculture and natural resources.

Orthodox economics theory dictates that A exports technology and B/C export natural resources and food, because that would be their comparative advantages on the market. Question: what happens to the profits from said trade?

A will undoubtably invest in more industrial production and technology to gain an even more dominant position in the market. This is easy to see.

Now let's look at B and C. If B invests in technology and industrial production, then its infant industries are in competition with the much more developed industries of A. It cannot compete, it loses all its investment. But wait, you say. It can tariff A, it can force companies and customers in B to only buy its own industrial products. OK. Let's say B can do that without any retaliation. It STILL loses - because C could've invested in more agricultural production and more natural resource extraction, thus beating B in the export market and lowering its ability to invest in industry.

Following classical economics, poor countries are doomed.

Wow, look at the load of theory you mugged up. What your orthodox theories teach you is hardly applicable in reality beyond a point. Market disruption technologies, innovation and various social and demographic changes. It doesnt even talk about geo political changes.

The problem with your theory on investment is crap lol. Investors dont just invest in developed countries or technologically advanced countries. The main motive is to have the ITR ( Investment Turnover Ratio ) and developed economies lack growth to sustain wealth creation. And that is why they invest in developing economies, which China is one of the major recipient of. Also, the traditional industries keeps changing every decade now and dominance in one sector can be easily brought down with innovation. Just look at Nokia. World largest mobile manufacturer at one point, miles ahead of anyone.

If you had thought an iota about trade and market practices in real life,you wouldnt have said what you said. Country B/C do not necessarily have to be net exporter of raw materials but at a certain stage with development of educational background and research, cultivate their own industry that is equally advanced or better as it is much more harder for developed countries to adapt to leapfrog technology than developing ones. Because one doesnt need to always start from the bottom to create an advanced tech. you can use the cumulative knowledge that has already been developed and start from there.

Also you dont seem to care about the increase in benchmark of living standards. It doesnt matter the tag of developing or developed if there is still considerable increase in living standards of your citizen.

That is why developing countries invest so much on education and research. Its a naive thinking that one who is ahead in a field will always stay ahead? Tell me, did your economics teachers really taught you that? Not considering all the other various factors in play.

Its so arrogant way of thinking that all the experts in the field just dont understand wtf they re doing, and you just solved all the problems of the world by giving a shitty theory on a forum.Thats why there are hardly any long standing authoritarian governments in the world and democratic societies have been developed and stable since centuries. Just a blip of forced development gets to your head.

I am sure there are a lot of knowledgeable Chinese who are running the economy that is a success and in contrast you are here typing on a forum.

@maximuswarrior Dont just clap like a crowd without understanding the substance of his reply, just because he wrote it neatly and becoz of your countries love affair.

 

[paritosh]

Go live in an authoritarian state then where you own no capital property and have no voting rights. Democracy is what we have chosen for good or for worse. Dont give such ill informed comments. Read twice before clicking on reply.

I read only once and yet I am replying.
Here is your democracy 101...
Democracy just gives power to the people to elect who represents them. Idiots use idiotic criteria (read caste, religion, clan allegiance, etc.) to select their reps.
If country A has more idiots than country B, country A's representatives will have a lower propensity to put a growth agenda at the forefront when in power than those of country B.
I don't know how comfortable you are with maths, but I can explain what I wrote above in the form of a linear programming problem...
A democratic country's Z function (the one you optimise) is how parties can get elected time and again. They need to optimise by considering factors (limiting functions) that people appreciate (which in our case are mostly around kinship, clan allegiance, religion, etc.) more. Hence to keep coming back in power, they have to mute out the effects of other variables and continue bringing the collective focus of all the idiots in the nation on the same divisive factors by working on the fear hypothesis that fuels the desire of the idiots to continue picking kinship, religion, caste,etc. over development focused factors.
So you are focused on brandishing your ability to vote as an advantage, while forgetting the fact that voting is just a means to achieve what actually matters, prosperity (which if you decompose into factors, we don't fair well on).
I am not against democracy, but I am also not blind to the fact that we have performed poorly on all developmental factors (I am sourcing this on data from UNHRD reports) against China and a lot of countries in South-east Asia that started as sovereign nations, almost at the same time as we did.
No point denying empirical evidence.

Regarding your comment on me living moving to an authoritarian state..
It has become fashionable to ask people who have a contrarian opinion to move out of India these days.
Besides, there is a growing number of Indians rushing to China,
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...tudents-than-britain/articleshow/62398336.cms

 

[BL33D]

I read only once and yet I am replying.
Here is your democracy 101...
Democracy just gives power to the people to elect who represents them. Idiots use idiotic criteria (read caste, religion, clan allegiance, etc.) to select their reps.
If country A has more idiots than country B, country A's representatives will have a lower propensity to put a growth agenda at the forefront when in power than those of country B.
I don't know how comfortable you are with maths, but I can explain what I wrote above in the form of a linear programming problem...
A democratic country's Z function (the one you optimise) is how parties can get elected time and again. They need to optimise by considering factors (limiting functions) that people appreciate (which in our case are mostly around kinship, clan allegiance, religion, etc.) more. Hence to keep coming back in power, they have to mute out the effects of other variables and continue bringing the collective focus of all the idiots in the nation on the same divisive factors by working on the fear hypothesis that fuels the desire of the idiots to continue picking kinship, religion, caste,etc. over development focused factors.
So you are focused on brandishing your ability to vote as an advantage, while forgetting the fact that voting is just a means to achieve what actually matters, prosperity (which if you decompose into factors, we don't fair well on).
I am not against democracy, but I am also not blind to the fact that we have performed poorly on all developmental factors (I am sourcing this on data from UNHRD reports) against China and a lot of countries in South-east Asia that started as sovereign nations, almost at the same time as we did.
No point denying empirical evidence.

Regarding your comment on me living moving to an authoritarian state..
It has become fashionable to ask people who have a contrarian opinion to move out of India these days.
Besides, there is a growing number of Indians rushing to China,
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...tudents-than-britain/articleshow/62398336.cms

I am not interested in the politics of it, Its messed up in our country.
I am onto, how you simplistically question why China was able to and India couldnt in 70 years completely ignoring the factors, conditions and nature of our society. Also at what cost China has forced development.
And also from your points it seems it doesnt matter to you the means through which development is achieved.
Show me a few authoritarian governments that have provided long term prosperity to its society without killing millions and not ending in a civil war?
Our implementation of democracy is flawed.
Our pace of growth is pretty slow, but its inclusive and organic. All the development in the world will not matter if basic social rights arent provided to humans, thats a long term problem which China is going to face, that Internet experts dont want or cant see.
There is a fundamental reason, many social rights are provided in a democracy.

Also, if China model is the ideal one, should people be supporting the majoritarian BJP govt. which only seems to get powerful. Maybe become something like CPC one day, with ornamental local parties. My bad, saying you should search for a authoritarian country. Why dont people just make one here and reap the benefits of state control.
Lets install a billion cameras and give social ratings to people. "Re-educate" religious people and bull doze private properties.

As people in China will get rich, economically stable, they will fight for the freedoms and independence. India is just doing the other way round. Refining its social structure before booming.

There is a limit till which people will lend power to the state for economic growth for the cost of fundamental rights.

 

[DavidsSling]

I am not interested in the politics of it, Its messed up in our country.
I am onto, how you simplistically question why China was able to and India couldnt in 70 years completely ignoring the factors, conditions and nature of our society. Also at what cost China has forced development.
And also from your points it seems it doesnt matter to you the means through which development is achieved.
Show me a few authoritarian governments that have provided long term prosperity to its society without killing millions and not ending in a civil war?
Our implementation of democracy is flawed.
Our pace of growth is pretty slow, but its inclusive and organic. All the development in the world will not matter if basic social rights arent provided to humans, thats a long term problem which China is going to face, that Internet experts dont want or cant see.
There is a fundamental reason, many social rights are provided in a democracy.

Also, if China model is the ideal one, should people be supporting the majoritarian BJP govt. which only seems to get powerful. Maybe become something like CPC one day, with ornamental local parties. My bad, saying you should search for a authoritarian country. Why dont people just make one here and reap the benefits of state control.
Lets install a billion cameras and give social ratings to people. "Re-educate" religious people and bull doze private properties.

As people in China will get rich, economically stable, they will fight for the freedoms and independence. India is just doing the other way round. Refining its social structure before booming.

There is a limit till which people will lend power to the state for economic growth for the cost of fundamental rights.

I can't believe you typed all the shit, "inclusive" is a pipe dream in India. No wonder all you Indians are running to Australia and the West, in fact anywhere that will take you. Even poor European and Eastern European countries, but then again anything is better than India.

Then when you have migrated to the West and settled there your ilk have the nerve to shout how great and wonderful India is, no wonder many people do not like India.

 

[BL33D]

I can't believe you typed all the shit, "inclusive" is a pipe dream in India. No wonder all you Indians are running to Australia and the West, in fact anywhere that will take you. Even poor European and Eastern European countries, but then again anything is better than India.

Then when you have migrated to the West and settled there your ilk have the nerve to shout how great and wonderful India is, no wonder many people do not like India.

Triggered much!!

 

[jamahir]

The 2019 Economic Sciences Laureates’ research findings have dramatically improved our ability to fight poverty in practice. As a result of one of their studies, more than five million Indian children have benefitted from programmes of remedial tutoring in schools, the statement said.

I don't understand this. Any proper Socialist country takes the welfare of its citizens seriously. There are things like free education, free medical system, free electricity etc. For example, Libya before 2011. Or Cuba. Why weren't Gaddafi, Che Guevara or Fidel Castro given the Nobel Economics Prize when they were alive, or even now posthumously ??

Or it is that the Nobel Economics Prize is for those create more confusion in the already confused Capitalist Western-style economics ??

"alleviating poverty"

Why doesn't India let this guy be PM then?

There actually is one capable person who can become the PM. He is Dr. Kanhaiya Kumar, a Leftist scholar from the JNU university in Delhi. He is young but highly intelligent and quite a counter to the Right-wingers who rule the country now.

 

[AViet]

Only 1 winner is Hindu you idiot. The other two are not.

All three are useless. I never consider economy a serious science. They are just like US lawyers, i.e. just lie to their agenda and create fake data to support their lies.

Any Vietnamese or Chinese economic professors who advise the governments in last 30 years deserves Nobel economic prize more than them.

Nobel committee should get rid of literature, peace and economy. They will soon make the prize a laughing stock.

 

[Daghalodi]

British didnt like India to do scientific research when they were ruling over us, not to say we should have done bettter in 70 years but its still not a sufficient time to build infrastructure and a research culture with 1.3 billion mouth to feed. There are different challenges. Dont take away from the acumen of Indians who do get the environment to do research.

OYE BC!! How do you find such sorry excuses to hide your indian imcompetences and failures???

Thats right blame the British and than the Mughals and than Aryans while your at it.

Bharati trolling has gone to sh!ts these days on pdf.

 

[bafxet]

Professor Abhijit Benerji and his wife Esther Duflo who won the 2019 Nobel prize in Economics. Their scientific approach in fighting poverty got great recognition. Prof. Abhijit Benerji is also an activist. He had served ten days in jail in New Delhi for his activism against racist and extremist policies of BJP.

 

[sixth]

this indian writer's thinking is closer to truth.
not only the Nobel prizes of peace and economics, also the prize of literature.
The writers of china , soviets, and none western countries, write books to demonize their governments and society will get the prizes. the aim is to brag about white supremacy.

----------------------------


“Nobel” for economics: Managing third world poor for the benefit of first world rich
By Samir Shukla

As a third class citizen of a third world nation, I always await the declaration of two Nobel prizes, of peace and economics (which I know is not exactly noble, sorry Nobel), as these two prizes are mostly about how my first world first class cousins want us, the third world poor, to behave.

As what is “peace” and “economics” is what the western owners of the planet have an exclusive right to decide about, these prizes are to reward us for our good behaviour or punish us for our bad (when they don’t feel that IMF or WTO is not enough).

Though we know that by “peace” or “economics”, they actually mean “peace and economics as it would work for us the first world rich”, as we know that they only wish us, the third world well, we celebrate their affirmation and feel proud of the achievement.

As the Nobel, or rather the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel of this year has been awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty”, it is abundantly clear that our lords and masters have spoken directly to us Indians by giving us a clear hint, and hence we must listen.

As these elites don’t use a cudgel to reform us (for that they keep large armies), they have just given us a condescending look and shown us that one of our own son has understood what we should be doing, and sad that we didn’t realise that and rejected NYAY, the greatest ever scheme for “alleviating poverty” and instead elected Narendra Modi.

It is a small hint they have dropped for the intelligent of our nation to pick up, and lo and behold! My Facebook wall is full of celebration of this Nobel as a defeat of Modi-an “Vikas” that masses (most surprisingly for Indian elites) opted for over free Rs 72000 landing in their pockets.

As one of the ill-informed persons who felt that NYAY was a disaster, this Nobel is a hard knock on my knuckles as Abhijit Banerjee has used “experimental approach”, that too while sitting in Ivey league academies, where I suspect poor of the world flock to get studied.

The beauty of this process is that west aied by these great experts has been working hard at “alleviating global poverty” since a long time, but, for the reason unknown (or because we are stupid), the only result is that they are getting richer and the rest of the world is getting poor.

It is only thanks to China that the poor-numbers are not looking that poor, as China has decided to do its own economics instead of using Ivey league wisdom (like India).

If I change the tone of this prose and get candid, the joke is on us and it should be hurting enough for us to wake up.

The world economics, the Nobel prizes and the Ivey league classes are not there to reduce our poverty. West has created all these institutions for only one purpose and that is a selfish purpose.

If west really wanted to solve the problem of poverty, it is clearly working at the wrong end of the economics.

Poverty is NOT the problem.

Western greed and the obscene wealth created by it is the problem.

The economic theories of “alleviating global poverty” are not aimed at removing poverty.

They are aimed ONLY at managing the poor for the benefit of the rich.

West knows that poor has to be managed just the right way so that there is no disruption and rich can carry on exploiting the poor in peace.

We as a nation are the worst suffers of this economic manipulation and we carry on being stupid to toe the western line. This Nobel celebration of a person of Indian origin is just a continuation of the fact that we have still not stepped out of the awe of the west.

I am not sure that Indian culture is about being rich or poor, but if that is the real problem that we want to see getting solved, China is the greatest example for us to learn from.

“According to the World Bank, more than 850 million people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty as China’s poverty rate fell from 88 per cent in 1981 to 0.7 per cent in 2015.” (Wikipedia) This was possible because China didn’t look for western appreciation of its economic policies by hiring Ivey league experts on poverty. It did its own thinking.

If we want to follow China’s suit, it will need ejecting the west-driven ideas, doing what is right for us instead of playing to the elite economists’ galleries of Ivey league and having our home-grown economics.

It will surely mean that there will be a huge loss, as it will mean no Nobel Prize for us, but there is one small gain likely and that is reduction of the suffering of millions of Indian poor.

 

[paritosh]

I am not interested in the politics of it, Its messed up in our country.
I am onto, how you simplistically question why China was able to and India couldnt in 70 years completely ignoring the factors, conditions and nature of our society. Also at what cost China has forced development.
And also from your points it seems it doesnt matter to you the means through which development is achieved.
Show me a few authoritarian governments that have provided long term prosperity to its society without killing millions and not ending in a civil war?
Our implementation of democracy is flawed.
Our pace of growth is pretty slow, but its inclusive and organic. All the development in the world will not matter if basic social rights arent provided to humans, thats a long term problem which China is going to face, that Internet experts dont want or cant see.
There is a fundamental reason, many social rights are provided in a democracy.

Also, if China model is the ideal one, should people be supporting the majoritarian BJP govt. which only seems to get powerful. Maybe become something like CPC one day, with ornamental local parties. My bad, saying you should search for a authoritarian country. Why dont people just make one here and reap the benefits of state control.
Lets install a billion cameras and give social ratings to people. "Re-educate" religious people and bull doze private properties.

As people in China will get rich, economically stable, they will fight for the freedoms and independence. India is just doing the other way round. Refining its social structure before booming.

There is a limit till which people will lend power to the state for economic growth for the cost of fundamental rights.

Mate, I don't agree with your point on democracy ensuring social inclusion. Let's take one specific example to see the effect of democracy in India...
The caste system has been outlawed in our democratic constitution, and exhibiting caste based prejudices has been criminalised, yet almost every political party uses caste-based politics to get elected by re-imagining and reinvigorating caste-fault lines in our society. A Yadav leader would sell his caste in the same way as a Rajput would against a meena, or a Rao would against a Naidu.
My hypothesis rests on the premise that there are more votes cast in India in the name of divisive issues than to being about inclusion.
There is a muslim votebank, there is a shia votebank, there is a punjabi khatri votebank, etc. All of which exist because our democratic set-up exploits a fear hypothesis within the people - the other clan will kill you and your family if they come to power!
It honestly takes a high degree of cohesion and good governance for a society to focus on true progress, it might seem to you that I support an autocratic set-up over a democratic one but that's not true. What I am saying is that no set-up is a good set-up or a bad one, they just have varying degrees of effects across contexts.
For democracy to be effective, the baseline rationality within the population has to cross a certain threshold, otherwise you are giving toddlers your car keys.

There actually is one capable person who can become the PM. He is Dr. Kanhaiya Kumar, a Leftist scholar from the JNU university in Delhi. He is young but highly intelligent and quite a counter to the Right-wingers who rule the country now.

I disagree, a country like India doesn't need one firebrand leader replacing another. We need a Manmohan with his hands free from a disruptive coalition.

 

[BL33D]

Mate, I don't agree with your point on democracy ensuring social inclusion. Let's take one specific example to see the effect of democracy in India...
The caste system has been outlawed in our democratic constitution, and exhibiting caste based prejudices has been criminalised, yet almost every political party uses caste-based politics to get elected by re-imagining and reinvigorating caste-fault lines in our society. A Yadav leader would sell his caste in the same way as a Rajput would against a meena, or a Rao would against a Naidu.

"I am not interested in the politics of it, Its messed up in our country."
That is why I said in the first line itself.
Democracy is still the most suitable form if you want long term stability. People need to correct their politics for sure. It will take time to be refined but it will happen. Problem is our abnormal size, which is different to any other democracy. Thats why such problems dont go away fast and progress is at glacial pace.
Thats why an authoritarian govt. like China might seem attractive in short term.